Archive

From the Xtremely Looney Files

.

Right wing nuttiness knows no bounds. Public utterance by Garth McVicar, Colin Craig, and recently from ACT’s new leader, Jamie Whyte, are just too good for any self-respecting (or otherwise) blogger to pass up.

From the laughable, on the chemtrail conspiracy theory,

“Our party has no formal position on chemtrails. I am aware of the theory that chemicals are being released at high altitude for some nefarious purpose, but don’t know whether there is any truth in this or not.” – Colin Craig, December 2012

… and more snorts of laughter on the conspiracy theory that the moonlandings were a hoax,

“I don’t have a belief or a non-belief in these things. I just don’t know. I have no idea, mate. That’s what we’re told. I’m sort of inclined to believe it. But at the end of the day I haven’t looked into it. There are very serious people that question these things. I don’t have to have an opinion on these things, I don’t have time to look into it.” – Colin Craig, 4 December 2013

… to the offensive,

“Why should, say, a 70-year-old who’s had one partner all their life be paying for a young woman to sleep around? We are the country with the most promiscuous young women in the world. This does nothing to help us at all.”- Colin Craig, 9 May 2012

… to nasty, ignorant, religion-inspired judgementalism,

“The marriage institution being a relationship between a man and a woman predates government. It is not the job of government to start re-defining marriage… New Zealand has had enough social engineering; it’s time to bring government back to core services” – Colin Craig, 11 May 2012

“I think most people recognise that there are other influences such as upbringing, such as events in life. For homosexuals, they are statistically far more likely to have suffered child abuses as a child… It certainly can make a difference in someone’s choices in life, there’s no question about that in my mind.” – Colin Craig, 4 August 2012

“Yes, we are discriminating between relationships. We are saying that marriage between a man and a woman is recognised. We are saying that a relationship between a man and a man, for example, goes down the path of a civil union.” – Colin Craig, 23 January 2013

… to this very strange exchange on TV3,

He was so sure that homosexuality was a choice, he bet his own sexuality on it.

“Do you think you could choose to be gay if that is the case?,” he was asked.

Meanwhile, new ACT leader, Jamie Whyte took a walk on the Very Wild Side on incestuous relationships,

“I don’t think the state should intervene in consensual adult sex or marriage, but there are two very important elements here – consensual and adult. I wonder who does believe the state should intervene in consensual adult acts? I find it very distasteful I don’t know why anybody would do it but it’s a question of principle about whether or not people ought to interfere with actions that do no harm to third parties just because they personally wouldn’t do it.

The probability of having some problem with the children is greater when the mother is over the age of 35 but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that anyone over the age of 35 shouldn’t be allowed to have sex.” – Jamie Whyte, 26 February 2014

Mind you, this is the character who referred to the minimum wage as “cruel”,

“ …those businesses which don’t directly lay off workers will be discouraged from employing more, or replacing those who leave voluntarily in future. The best thing that low skilled workers can do is get work experience. It’s hard to think of a crueller policy than passing a law that bans the people most in need of work experience from getting any.” – Jamie Whyte, 25 February 2014

– because as we all know, paying someone $1 an hour is not *cruel*.

… and has no problem in abolishing health and safety regulations to protect workers,

“ I do believe that the regulatory framework around labour and health and safety in New Zealand should be liberalised, and I think there’ll be many advantages to workers in liberalising them. I’m not sure that we’re going to campaign hard on that, but I certainly believe that.” – Jamie Whyte, 3 February 2014

– because 29 men killed at Pike River Mine, and dozens killed in the foresty industry, is not a sufficient sacrifice on the alter of Libertarianist ideology.

… and plucking bizarre beliefs out of thin air (on the marriage equality Bill),

“ The marriage amendment bill will not benefit society at all and will ultimately have detremetal [sic] effect on crime at all levels.” – Garth McVicar, 20 January 2012

Fairfax Media has a ” new columnist for the Waikato Times” (see: Bill denies kids what they need). Narelle Hensen’s first piece appeared in the Waikato Times on 18 March, followed five days later by another piece, Dole queues long but bosses can’t get workers. (Note: Ms Hensen has previously written and worked under her maiden name; Narelle Suisted, for the Auckland publication, “Auckland Now“, and TV3′s “The Nation“.)

Her first column-piece was a thinly-disguised, homophobic lecturing against gays, lesbians, marriage equality, and their fitness (or lack thereof) as parents.

The second was a nasty little smear against the unemployed.

(This blogger is waiting for her next target. Solo-mums? Maori? There are plenty of minorities available.)

What Fairfax hasn’t disclosed is that Ms Hensen also worked as a Communications Officer for the right-wing think-tank, Maxim Institute (see: Wikipedia Maxim Institute). The Maxim Institute is virulently opposed to marriage equality, as outlined in their submission to Parliament on the Marriage Amendment Bill (see: Submission to the Marriage – Maxim Institute).

It appears that the right-wing in this country have a new voice in the msm (mainstream media).

In her first article, Bill denies kids what they need, Ms Hensen railed against marriage equality. She used children as her weapon-of-choice, and started of with this bizarre statement,

“Most of us, no doubt, would agree, and would find it difficult to decide which of our parents to give up for another mum or dad. But that is what the Marriage Amendment Bill will require of some kids in generations to come. That is why I don’t support the bill.”

Did I read that right? She condemns the Marriage Amendment Bill because a child “would find it difficult to decide which of our parents to give up for another mum or dad” ?!

Why would marriage equality demand that of children now? And in what way would that be different to divorce as it is presently?

As most of us are perfectly aware, it is the Family Courts that determine access to children – not the concept of marriage equality. I doubt if Ms Hensen could point to any aspect of the Marriage Amendment Bill that would demand that a child has to “decide which of our parents to give up for another mum or dad”.

She offers another justification to oppose marriage equality,

“That means some kids will be denied the right to either a mother or a father, while their peers, by luck of birth, will be allowed both.”

Really? And what about the thousands of children who already have only one parent? What about the thousands of heterosexual couples who have separated and their children are “denied the right to either a mother or a father”? Or one has died through illness or accident – that’s real bad luck!

And just why is it “luck” to have heterosexual parents as opposed to gay or lesbian parents? The implication being that having gay/lesbian parents is “bad luck”. Perhaps being born to a mixed-race couple is also “bad luck” for a child? Or born to parents, one of whom might have a disability?

.

.

Not to mention the bad luck of being born to right wing parents…

If a child is ‘lucky’, it is that they have a stable family, with love, attention, set boundaries, support, respect, nutritious food, warmth, good housing, access to education; healthcare, etc. The gender/orientation of parents and caregivers doesn’t really seem to factor as a life-giving necessity.

Indeed, Ms Hensen seemed eager to dismiss love as a trivial matter not worthy of consideration,

“Of course, a lot of people argue the Marriage Amendment Bill is about love, and equality. But love or equality for who? These terms sound great, and they capture our emotions, but taking a moment to think about them makes us realise that in practice, they demand compromise from someone – either gay couples who must compromise the right to raise children, or children, who must compromise the right to have both a mum and a dad.”

It is unclear why gay (or straight) couples need to “compromise” – except in Ms Hensen’s mind where, for some reason, having gay or lesbian parents is a lesser option than heterosexual parents. Is love a transaction that “demands a compromise”? She doesn’t explain what she basis that idea on.

What a strange world that Ms Hensen inhabits.

Except…

Ms Hensen referred to a particular group to justify her prejudices,

“That is why the group Homovox started in France. It consists of homosexual couples who disagree with same-sex marriage, and same-sex adoption. As one contributor says: “The law should seek what is best for a child, and that is to have a mother and a father“.”

It took only a few clicks and poking around on a Search Engine to find out a little more about “Homovox“.

For one thing, it is not a LGBT organisation at all. It’s a front group set up by the Catholic Church, as GAYNZ reported on their website,

When is an LGBT organisation not an LGBT organisation? When it has been established by an antigay French conservative Catholic to make it seem as if there is “French LGBT” opposition to marriage equality. Thus it is with France’s “Homovox”, allegedly a “French” gay organisation of “LGBT” marriage equality opponents. However, on his website, Joe. My. God’s commenters uncovered who was actually behind the website, which turned out to be someone from the French Catholic Right. To be more precise:

It seems that the Catholic Church in France has copied the tactics of the Unification Church and Scientologists, who also employ front-organisations as smoke-screens to the parent-church.

Did Ms Hensen know this? If she didn’t, she’s not much of a journalist.

If she was aware of the true nature of “Homovox” – and chose not to disclose it – then she has an agenda of her own. And the presentation (or lack) of facts is not part of it.

Ms Hensen is not above claiming statistics to back up her prejudices,

“Of course, there are those who argue it is better to bring up a child in a loving homosexual relationship than it is for them to be raised in an antagonistic heterosexual relationship. But if we are going to make comparisons, they must be fair. And when you compare a loving, heterosexual marriage with a loving homosexual union, the statistics paint a very clear picture.”

– but tellingly, she refuses to disclose any such statistics for the reader. So much for her comment that “if we are going to make comparisons, they must be fair”.

We are, I guess, expected to take her word that such statistics exist? Perhaps they are held by her former employers at Maxim Institute – an organisation known for it’s hostility toward gays and lesbians having full equal rights.

The point of that last paragraph, I suggest to the reader, is to undermine any notion that having loving parents who care for children should not be judged on the basis of sexual orientation. Note her reference,

“And when you compare a loving, heterosexual marriage with a loving homosexual union…”

What about comparing a dysfunctional heterosexual household with a loving gay/lesbian household? God knows there are plenty of the former. Our newspapers are full of stories where children, infants, babies were mercilessly ill-treated until their fragile bodies could no longer cope with dad’s punches whilst mum looked on, or vice versa.

The parents of Delcelia Witika were good, solid, heterosexuals who engaged in Maxim Institute-approved, heterosexual, sex. Then they killed their little girl.

I submit to Ms Hensen, that at such a point in a brutalised child’s life, they are not really going to give a damn if the wearer of steel-capped boots kicking their heads to pieces, is heterosexual or not.

Ms Hensen’s says,

“It is often very difficult to decide whose rights win, which is why there are so many court cases, and indeed courts, all about human rights. But when it comes to adults’ rights conflicting with the rights of children, most of us would agree that children should come first.”

*

Her entire article was dedicated to a simple premise; that job seekers in this country are unemployable, with anti-social personalities and severe behavioural flaws consisting of;

“Drunkenness Absenteeism Failing drug tests Physicality when told to leave site Not turning up for interview Smoking throughout interview Chewing gum throughout interview No CV prepared CVs full of basic spelling mistakes”

Her column mercilessly depicted the unemployed as unfit for employment. One of her commentators even questioned their right to be citizens.

She quoted anecdote after anecdote of unemployed people with allegedly poor personal habits and poor work ethics – though she gave few details what the jobs were or any other specifics.

Dave Connell, vice-president of the New Zealand Contractors Federation and managing director of Connell Construction, was somewhat more subdued in his criticisms,

“We have dealt with absenteeism, drunkenness, drugs . . . We are persevering for three to six weeks sometimes.”

As a damning propaganda piece, with the purpose of vilifying the unemployed, it was masterfully done.

Other than that, though, one has to ask the question; what the hell was the point of it? What possible purpose did it serve? Because it sure as hell didn’t shed much light on the subject.

I have an idea.

Up till now, the unemployed have been painted as lazy, boozing, and unwilling to go out and find work.

That myth has been well and truly dispelled with stories of thousands of unemployed queuing for a few jobs. Just recently, on 12 March, ‘Campbell Live’ did a series of stories of hundreds of workers lining up for just seven jobs at an Auckland factory (see: Sign of the times: hundreds queue for 7 jobs)

Ms Hensen could not write a credible story desparaging the unemployed as “lazy”. In these times of high unemployment, the public no longer accepts that generalisation. In fact, most people probably know someone who has lost their job, or, fresh our of school or University, cannot land a job, and has been turned down application after application.

So, for Ms Hensen that avenue was closed off.

Instead, in the best tradition of right wingers who blame the victims of this country’s on-going recessionary fall-out, she attacked and desparaged the quality of job seekers.

Repeating anecdotal stories, without any supporting context to offer a deeper understanding, she wrote a piece that painted job seekers as poorly educated; drug addicts; inarticulate – even chewing gum!

As a hatchet job, it certainly perpetuated negative stereotypes about the unemployed. It also reinforced the unacknowledged class structure that has been developing in this country for the last 30 years; the unemployed are “riff raff, beneath our contempt; and not worthy of being treated as our equals”.

As a “dog whistle” it attracted 321 comments (as at the time of this blogpost being written) – many of which were little more than ill-informed, offensive, stereotyping.

Ms Hensen might care to reflect on the irrational hatred expressed by those who supported her story. Is that the readership she is pandering to?

It also showed of some of Ms Hensen’s sources as less than ideal unemployers, with barely concealed prejudices.

But even if Ms Hensen’s poisonous polemic was 100% accurate, reflecting an unvarnished reality – employers and government have only themselves to blame.

How many times have trade unionists, economists, and leftwing commentators warned employers and government that if New Zealand continued to drive down wages – as National has been doing with it’s labour law “reforms” – what did they think would happen?

On 1 April, the minimum wage will rise by 25 cents to $13.75 per hour. In Australia the rate is NZ$19.96 an hour, though wages are usually higher than that.

On 1 May, young people 16 to 19 will also have a new youth rate, that will be 80% of the minimum wage. That’s $11 per hour. How will young New Zealanders react to what is effectively a wage-cut?

And employers are whinging their heads off that the best and brightest are buggering off to Aussie?

The reality, though, is more prosaic. People want work. The unemployment benefiit ($204.96/wk/net) is not sufficient to live on. Many looking for work will be University graduates. Others will be poorly educated. But they all want a job.

Perhaps the real purpose of Ms Hensen’s article – dressed up as a “news story” – was designed to serve as propaganda in a prelude to relaxing immigration laws and allow immigrant workers to flood the country? By creating a new urban myth that unemployed New Zealanders are “dregs”, it gives National the excuse to bring in labour from overseas. Cheap labour. Workers who will not kick up a fuss about exploitation; lax safety practices; and abuse.

The abuse of workers on Foreign Charter Vessels fishing within our EEZ waters gives an idea what might be our future (see previous related blogpost: A Slave By Any Other Name).

I suspect Ms Hensen is not finished with excoriating minorities in this country. Her poison pen is poised. It’s only a matter of who is next in her sights. And what her agenda is.

History was made today when Parliament voted over-whelmingly to legalise same-sex marriage, 77 votes to 44.

Extending full marriage equality to consenting adults regardless of gender and sexual orientation was something that had to pass. No society can call itself civilised when it deprives some people a right enjoyed by others. Injustice cannot be allowed to prevail if we are all to live freely.

For those who opposed marriage equality, I say this; nothing has been taken from you, today. Your lives will go on as before. But the lives of gays and lesbians will have improved immeasurably.

For those people who opposed marriage equality on religious grounds, then understand this; your god is not everyone elses’ god. You may think so – but it isn’t true.

“To those in the lGBTi community who wish a religious ceremony, St Matthew’s will begin taking bookings for your wedding tomorrow.”

This is the warm, inclusive, non-judgemental side of humanity’s religious faith. Imagine what kind of world we might live in if all regions expressed such tolerant, loving belief.

To all those seventyseven Members of Parliament – regardless of Party affiliation and political beliefs – who voted for marriage equality; it was a fine thing you did tonight. This is what New Zealanders can achieve when we work together to make something good.

To all those seventyseven Member of Parliament – today you have made history.

It came with other advertising junk-mail (despite the “No Junk Mail” clearly visible on our letterbox), so it was obviously delivered by a commercial leafletting company and not by Party volunteers.

The front page instantly commanded attention with the wording, “Do you agree?” followed by “Find out what 34% of people surveyed didn’t know!”.

Stirring stuff!

What was taxing the mind of Conservative Party leader, Colin Craig?

What pressing issues were dominating his thoughts?

Was it the loss of 40,000 jobs in the last four years as the manufacturing and export sector are hit by a higher and higher New Zealand Dollar?

Was it 85,000+ young people not in employment, education of training?

Was it the 175,000 unemployed?

Was it 250,000 children living in poverty?

Was it National’s intention to partially flog of five state assets, worth billions to taxpayers in this country?

Time to open the pamplet and find out…

.

.

Marriage equality?!

Craig has spent tens of thousands of dollars on a piece of colour-printed, glossy paper to complain about gays and lesbians being given marriage equality???

Where is this man’s head at?

.

.

Craig’s comments are not even logical.

For one thing, he states that “this is not about equality”.

Rubbish.

It is all about equality.

He even admits it,

“The Civil Union Act in fact copied the operating provisions of the Marriage Act so both have the same legal equality (except deliberately in the case of adoption and parentingof children.)”

Oh… so there’s ‘equality’ – except in cases of blah, blah, blah.

Um… *scratches head*… then it’s not equality, is it, Mr Craig?

Saying that “…both have the same legal equality except deliberately in the case of adoption and parentingof children” is like saying that Blacks in the Southern States of America were equal to Whites in the 1950s… except for blah, blah, blah…

Or Blacks in South Africa were equal to Whites in South Africa during the Apartheid Era. Oh, except that Blacks couldn’t vote. And weren’t allowed on certain beaches. Or blah, blah, blah…

Message to Mr Craig’s remaining functioning brain cells: you can’t have equality where exceptions undermine that equality. Because then it’s not equality. It’s something else.

Which, by the way, is one of the strange points that Craig attempts to make in his weirdly surreal propaganda.

On the page below, Craig states,

“This country has become a dangerous place to be a child. If nothing else we must fight and speak for the children. We must seek their absolute best [?] and give of ourselves to protect them, blah, blah, blah…”

So what is it that Colin Craig is trying to say? That two people in love and wanting to marry is going to make “this country … a dangerous place to be a child “?! How the f**k does that work?

Poverty is dangerous for children.

Lack of nutritious food is dangerous for children.

Damp houses are dangerous for children.

Drugs and alcohol dangerous for children.

Abusive households are dangerous for children.

Government policies to do with low wages; poor housing; and lack of opportunities is dangerous for children.

But two people in love wanting to get married?

The workings of Colin Craig’s mind is even more unfathomable than I had previously believed possible. No wonder John Key rolled his eyes and muttered “it’s going to be a long two and a half years” when presented with the possibility of the bizarre Conservative Party as a potential coalition partner (see: John Key’s midterm blues?).

.

.

Reading this trash, I laughed even harder when I spotted another incongruency at Craig’s disjointed thinking.

On page 2,

“… Mr Key is now ignoring his electorate and says he will support same-sex marriage and adoption. He will not be voting as directed by his electorate. This is simply wrong. If Mr Key will not vote on behalf of his electorate, then who will? He is their paid representative; he is the one person sent to Parliament on their behalf.“

On page 3,

“Good leadership requires listening to both sides of the debate and then deciding what is best for our country.”

So on the one hand… Craig sez that it “is simply wrong” for Key not to vote according to his electorate (not that we actually know what his electorate “thinks”.

But on the other hand, “good leadership ” is about “ listening to both sides of the debate and then deciding what is best for our country“.

Hmmm, a bit contradictory there, Colin. You should proof-read your writing a bit more closely.

Last bit,

“I believe the evidence shows that it is ideal that an adopted child grow up with a great Mum and Dad…”

Two things bother me about that blanket statement.

1. If “evidence” exists to support Mr Craig’s prehistoric views, then it’s not a matter of “belief”. Evidence either exists to support his views. Or it does not.

Belief does not enter into it.

2. Unfortunately, the evidence that does exist points to one inescapable fact; many homes in our country are dangerous places for young children.

Too many have been neglected, severely injured, beaten, sexually abused, traumatised, and killed – at the hands of their “Dads” and too often, their “Mums”.